Republican Congressman Slams Bush On Militarized Police State Preparation

Wildcard

Moderator
Posted over at thr, dont have a like to it yet, will add it later when I find it.



Republican Congressman Slams Bush On Militarized Police State Preparation

Ron Paul says indictment story is far more damaging than media is portraying, avian flu martial law provisions aimed at gun confiscation

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones | October 12 2005

Congressman Ron Paul has accused the Bush administration of attempting to set in motion a militarized police state in America by enacting gun confiscation martial law provisions in the event of an avian flu pandemic. Paul also slammed as delusional and dangerous plans to invade Iran, Syria, North Korea and China.

Ron Paul represents the 14th Congressional district of Texas. He also serves on the House of Representatives Financial Services Committee, and the International Relations committee.

Paul appeared on the Alex Jones show yesterday and raised some interesting points about the possibility of imminent indictments of top Bush administration figures.

"I think there's a lot more excitement coming and it's not going to be good for the Republicans," stated Paul.

"The things that I hear have to do with Karl Rove and Abramoff and that's much much worse than anybody would believe and it involves DeLay as well."

"And that type of an indictment will be much more serious than the indictment of shifting campaign funds around.....there's some political infighting which could make that really interesting."

On the subject of the police state, Paul stated, "If we don't change our ways we will go the way of Rome and I see that as rather sad.....the worst things happen when you get the so-called Republican conservatives in charge from Nixon on down, big government flourishes under Republicans."

"It's really hard to believe it's happening right in front of us. Whether it's the torture or the process of denying habeas corpus to an American citizen."
"I think the arrogance of power that they have where they themselves are like Communists....in the sense that they decide what is right. The Communist Party said that they decided what was right or wrong, it wasn't a higher source."

Paul responded to President Bush's announcement last week that he would order the use of military assets to police America in the event of an avian flu outbreak.

"To me it's so strange that the President can make these proposals and it's even plausible. When he talks about martial law dealing with some epidemic that might come later on and having forced quarantines, doing away with Posse Comitatus in order to deal with natural disasters, and hardly anybody says anything. People must be scared to death."

Paul, himself a medical doctor, agreed that the bird flu threat was empty fearmongering.

"I believe it is the President hyping this and Rumsfeld, but it has to be in combination with the people being fearful enough that they will accept the man on the white horse. My first reaction going from my political and medical background is that it's way overly hyped and to think that they have gone this far with it, without a single case in the whole country and they're willing to change the law and turn it into a military state? That is unbelievable! They're determined to have martial law."

Paul opined that the martial law provisions now being promoted by the Bush administration were a direct response to people's unwillingness to relinquish their firearms, as was seen in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

"I think they're concerned about the remnant, the remnant of those individuals who don't buy into stuff and think that they should take care of themselves on their own, that they should have their own guns and their own provisions and they don't want to depend on the government at all and I think that is a threat to those who want to hold power. They don't want any resistance to their authoritarian rule."

Paul opined that the government was on a delusional power trip that threatened the country.

"These guys are ready to start a war with Iran, Syria, North Korea or China. They can't possibly do that, it's so insane, we don't have the money, we don't have the troops, we probably don't even have the ammunition."

"But, if they are truly delusional they just might do something that's totally irrational."

Paul expressed his hope that finally some conservatives are waking up to the fact that the Bush administration is a trojan horse, especially after arch-liberal Harriet Miers was chosen by Bush to supposedly move the Supreme Court to the right, even though her record is atrocious and she has been involved in the past covering up for the Bush crime family's activities.
 
Paul expressed his hope that finally some conservatives are waking up to the fact that the Bush administration is a trojan horse

My goodness what a PERFECT description of our current administration.
 
Ron Paul is right.

Ron Paul is correct in calling the President to task for trying to set this "military command during emergencies" into motion.

It is astounding to me that the Democrats are not outraged, since they feel the military is "inherently evil" (which I understnd is a quote from one of President Clinton's letters to the director of his draft board in Arkansas)

Why the Democrats on the far left (such as Schumer, Clinton, and Kennedy) are not screaming bloody murder about military involvement to quarantine Americans, and disarm them if necessary during a "declared emergency" is very telling.

There is nothing they would love more than the military being used to disarm American Citizens, for any reason. As evidence, behold their silence. I just can't understand why President Bush would suggest this, expecially with Hillary Clinton waiting in the wings for the election in 2008!

GMC
 
+1

The increasing support for having the US military respond to a "crisis" is a nasty idea. I voted twice for Bush, but that doesn't mean I'm a big fan. I don't like quite a few of his policies (though I wouldn't shed tears if we turned Syria, North Korea and China into smoking radioactive holes in the earth).

I'm surprised the "left" doesn't totally melt down over the idea of having the military respond to domestic situations in anything short of an invasion. I mean, it would seem to me that, if I was a lefty, the idea of giving that power to the Bush administration would send me packing for a move to Canada real quick. Not that I'd shed a tear over that, either, but you get my drift.

I have been a proponent of self reliance for quite some time, but when the suggestion is made to have this kind of domestic military involvement, that's downright scary.

I guess it's to be expected, at least in some regard. There was a time when a man who could spend a night in the wilderness with nothing more than a knife was called "Eagle Scout", and it was something to be admired. Now that man is called a "survivalist", and he's to be feared as a paraniod anti-government freak. Where are we going, and what are we doing in this handbasket?

Not to mention it flies in the face of many state Constitutions, many of which, if I remember correctly, refer to standing armies as "dangerous to liberty". And people want to advocate having them respond to hurricanes and floods?!?
 
True Ron Paul is listed as a Rebublican. True he seldom votes along the same
preferences as other (most) Republicans. True he lives in his own little world detached from the GOP and Democrats, and true he represents Houston or that area which is more liberal along with Austin than likely San Francisco.
And absolutely true, his votes and evidently thoughts also do not represent but a few Texas Republicans. And true Texans like President Bush who was the best Governor we have had in decades. Have he and McCain switched?
 
Martial law and 2008 election

Anyone else concerned that Bush would like nothing more than to have martial law in 2008 so he could have a pretext to suspend the presidential election?

Do I recall correctly that some members of his administration talked about "postponing" the 2004 elections because we were in the middle of a war? I get nervous when ANY politician (left or right) floats trial ballons that suggests limiting our freedom or constitutional rights.
 
I have probably said this before somewhere here or on another board but whatever happened to people doing things for themselves?

At one time you would have seen pictures on the news of crowds of people out on the levees filling sandbags and trying to hold back the waters. Now you have a couple of self-important newspeople standing around watching the water run over the top. And where are the boy scouts?

And who says New Orleans shouldn't be rebuilt or lived in again because it floods easily. What about St. Petersburg (the one in Russia), Venice (the one in Italy), London (the one in England) or all of Holland (the one in Europe).

It is also curious that much of the government money going for work in the Gulf region, especially in Louisiana, is going to companies somewhere else, while local governments there are going broke.

On the other hand, maybe using the military is the only solution for some problems because the federal government has sent so much of the National Guard overseas (to get them out of the way?). The National Guard is supposed to be there for the governors to use for emergencies, real emergencies I mean, not manufactured ones.

The problem is, conservatives are not in charge: radicals are!
 
I voted for Bush both times, based on his alleged progun policies. Now he wants to institute martial law, a military/police state and gun confiscation if America is hit by the avian flu. This... "stuff" is unbelievable!!! I would have expected this from Kerry!!!

Ron Paul is and always has been a straight arrow kind of guy - he stands without apology for the Constitution and Bill of Rights. IMHO, you can take what he says to the bank. We need to be VERY concerned about what he has to say about this latest turn of events.

"I think they're concerned about the remnant, the remnant of those individuals who don't buy into stuff and think that they should take care of themselves on their own, that they should have their own guns and their own provisions and they don't want to depend on the government at all and I think that is a threat to those who want to hold power. They don't want any resistance to their authoritarian rule."

We The People are screwed, folks - who are we going to vote for now?? Rice claims that the Second Amendment is vital to a free nation (sound familiar?) -BUT- keep in mind that she is very tight with Bush. What guarantee do we have that she would not follow in his two-faced footsteps???

What guarantee do we have that there will even be a Presidential election in 2008??

I can"t believe I'm writing this!!

It is astounding to me that the Democrats are not outraged, since they feel the military is "inherently evil" (which I understnd is a quote from one of President Clinton's letters to the director of his draft board in Arkansas)

Why the Democrats on the far left (such as Schumer, Clinton, and Kennedy) are not screaming bloody murder about military involvement to quarantine Americans, and disarm them if necessary during a "declared emergency" is very telling.

Why would the Demosocialists complain? Gun confiscation is their holy grail. Their only regret would be that one of them didn't get to give the order. Gun confiscation and the resulting police state rule is and always has been their wet dream.

The Demosocialists want absolute power with zero accountability to We The People. The sad fact is, apparently Bush "the gun owner's friend" wants the same.

Our freedom, our Constitution and our nation are hanging by a very thin thread.

If anyone has any ideas about what to do, I'm listening...
 
Last edited:
Why would the Demosocialists complain? Gun confiscation is their holy grail. Their only regret would be that one of them didn't get to give the order. Gun confiscation and the resulting police state rule is and always has been their wet dream.

The Demosocialists want absolute power with zero accountability to We The People. The sad fact is, apparently Bush "the gun owner's friend" wants the same.

Exactly progunner. And your assumption is correct. See my latest post on same. As for what to do, I am not sure, but my first try would be to get involved. Write your congressmen and women and let them know what you think. I wrote Ron Paul and thanked him, and urged him to bring his constituents along. We are reaching a critical juncture here. If any of you were thinking of becoming active politically, now would be a good time for us to speak with one voice, and loud enough for Washington to hear it. If the NRA can change policy with only 1-2% of the population behind it, even 5-10 million of us could do a lot of good.

Option #2: CANADA
 
Option #2: CANADA

I love traveling in Canada - great people, outstanding scenery, good prices (food/lodging, not gas) but I'm not turning in my handguns to their police, either.

Canada's antigun laws are so onerous and obnoxious that Canada is not an option; there's no place to run to, no place to hide.
 
police.jpg
 
The disarming of civilians in a disaster area has been ruled against in court in the last 2 weeks, the NRA won. FEMA eliminated it from the books. The plan was written in due to all the media reporting of gun violence that really did not take place in Katrina's aftermath. Media scared everyone and really dropped tha ball in New Orleans.

The only reason Bush mentioned having the military as the first responders and in control in the event of the next big disaster was simply good politics. He knew the Governors of all the states would shoot it down and the truth of who is responsible during a natural disaster would come out. After Katrina, Democrats and everyone in the media blamed Bush for not having the military and FEMA there 5 minutes after the storm subsided. They claimed that all responsibility fell on him and most "Sheeple" that did not know the seperation of powers beleived them. The Bush military plan was to educate the morons in our society on how the system works.

His oponents went from "Bush hates black people and should have sent troops in without consent from the Governor" to "The Governor should have total control of what goes on in his or her state whether there is a disaster or not". Now mosty folks know Bush is not responsible for the Katrina aftermath. The Governor and Mayor were the first responders and were the ones that screwed up.

Once the Conressman mentioned going to war with China, Syria, Iran, and N. Korea, I knew he was full of conspiracy theories. If Bush was planning to take over and turn us into a police state, I wonder why he can hardly get a person voted on thru the Senate.

Relax guys, remember all the conspiracy theories we were spreading during the Clinton admin that did not even come close to happening.
 
The only reason Bush mentioned having the military as the first responders and in control in the event of the next big disaster was simply good politics. He knew the Governors of all the states would shoot it down and the truth of who is responsible during a natural disaster would come out.
Positively Machiavellian (well, actually, Machiavelli would have had a surrogate introduce that suggestion).

But lemme ask you. If Congress takes him seriously and acts on this, what does GW say, "Just kidding?"

And lemme ask you this: was he also bluffing when he asked the (incompetent) Governor of LA to cede control of the State to the Feds?

If Bush was planning to take over and turn us into a police state, I wonder why he can hardly get a person voted on thru the Senate.
I thinks Roberts fairly sailed thru...that may be a plus. But I know PATRIOT sailed thru. I know PATRIOT II sailed thru. What were we talking about again? Oh yeah, the fact that America is not marching toward Police State.
Rich
 
I thinks Roberts fairly sailed thru...that may be a plus. But I know PATRIOT sailed thru. I know PATRIOT II sailed thru. What were we talking about again? Oh yeah, the fact that America is not marching toward Police State.
Rich
_______________________________________________________

Rich, I am confused.

Your posts indicate that you fear our becoming a police state. I believe you.

And although I voted for Bush twice and loathe what the Democrats stand for, I also fear we are moving toward becoming a police state.

And I am pro-police because I know we need them. The Anarchists are nuts and even the Libertarians tend toward the Utopian. An educated, moral people need little government. And our population was much closer to that ideal at our founding. Yet even so we gradually lost and are now more quickly losing our freedoms. And look at our dumbed-down, movie and TV educated population today. These people are going to be for liberty and self-responsibility?

That's why I know we need the police.


But here is what I am confused about:

The KBG were police, the Savak were police, so were the Tonton Makoot (sp?). In Communist China they have the Guoanbu, in today's Iran the Vevak, in North Korea the State Safety and Security Agency (sounds strangely like Texas).

In the States we have the ATF and FBI and we all know about Waco and Ruby Ridge. And we know who yanked Evian Gonzales (the Cuban kid) away from his relatives and shipped him back to Fidel in Cuba.


And as I Jew I am all too aware that, except for the Danes and some of the Dutch, ALL of Europe's police heartily co-operated with the SS and other German units in dragging out and hauling off their Jews. They either co-operated or they did the dragging and hauling themselves.


My GF's brother-in-law is a cop. I eat Xmas and Thanksgiving dinner at his house most years. Nice guy -- I like him. His brother is also a cop; they're both close to retirement. Their father is already retired from the force.

But I know that their main interest is in their salaries, their perks and their pensions. No problem there; most people in any line of work are like that. I am like that.


So even here in the States, except for a few, most cops are going to be more concerned with their financial security than with the niceties of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

And when the police state is finally upon us, it is they who will be doing the "policing".


And you publish S.W.A.T. magazine. Your market are the police.


Now I don't mean in any way to be insulting. And I sure hope I don't get kicked off the TFL for this. But I can't help wondering?


What will you do if and when we become a police state, change the magazines's name to M.A.Q.U.I.S?



matis
 
And you publish S.W.A.T. magazine. Your market are the police.
Now I don't mean in any way to be insulting. And I sure hope I don't get kicked off the TFL for this. But I can't help wondering?
What will you do if and when we become a police state, change the magazine's name to M.A.Q.U.I.S?
LOL. No, there's no insult there and you won't get kicked off TFL for it.

Yes, it is a bit of a contradiction....but only on the surface. You'd need to read SWAT to understand (free PDF samples are available on the web site). SWAT is dedicated to "Training and Tactics for the Real World". It's dedicated to empowerment of those who would strand up to the animals of society. To the extent that some animals might wish to read it and learn; well that's the risk any publisher takes.

When America becomes similar to any of the regimes you've mentioned, I won't need to change the magazine name. It will no longer exist, as I will be in prison for, if nothing else, Claire Wolfe's Enemy at the Gate column alone.
Rich
 
It's dedicated to empowerment of those who would strand up to the animals of society. (Rich)
_______________________________________________________________

I didn't make it plain in my post, but THAT is the main reason I tend to like and why I support police. And why I feel disdain for those who are TOO quick to impugne police motives ("po-lice brutality").




_______________________________________________________
When America becomes similar to any of the regimes you've mentioned, I won't need to change the magazine name. It will no longer exist, as I will be in prison for, if nothing else, Claire Wolfe's Enemy at the Gate column alone.
Rich
_______________________________________________________

OK, I feel much better. I do have some ambivalence, though, and it WAS bothering me is all.


(By the way, I subscribe and enjoy the magazine.)

Thanks,


matis
 
Why not disarm folks who are willing to do what they are told? We have about 1 in 20 gunowners, a whopping 5%, in the USA who feel strongly enough about that right to belong to ANY political organization to protect it, dues paying or otherwise. With so many willing to hand over their guns it is certainly no wonder there are those who would take them. If you would peacfully allow yourself to be disarmed by an illegal government that does not follow its (and your) own constitution - then you did not deserve the freedom to be armed in the first place.
 
True Ron Paul is listed as a Rebublican. True he seldom votes along the same preferences as other (most) Republicans. True he lives in his own little world detached from the GOP and Democrats, and true he represents Houston or that area which is more liberal along with Austin than likely San Francisco. And absolutely true, his votes and evidently thoughts also do not represent but a few Texas Republicans. And true Texans like President Bush who was the best Governor we have had in decades. Have he and McCain switched?

He represents part of Fort Bend County which may be near Houston. Galveston may have the biggest liberal population in his district. Houston may have liberals but it has a lot of Bubbas too. He has part of Chambers county which is def Bubba Country. He has towns like Angleton, Victoria, Friendswood, Lake Jackson and Texas City I would hardly call these bastions of liberalism.....

Ron Paul would be classified as a strict constitutionalist......

if the constitution doesnt authorize it....it aint gettin his vote

The founding fathers feared an authoritarian state...this is why Ron Paul is raggin on W. Has nothing to do with liberalism.

here are what he calls his Freedom Principles:

Rights belong to individuals, not groups.

Property should be owned by people, not government.

All voluntary associations should be permissible -- economic and social.

The government's monetary role is to maintain the integrity of the monetary unit, not participate in fraud.

Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges.

The lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, not the government's.

Maybe Ron Paul is the REAL Republican and not a FAUX Republican...lol
 
Back
Top